Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lucagrabacr

Stop calling combat "PvP" pt. 2

Recommended Posts

I wrote about these a bit ago shortly after beta release, and exactly what I said gonna happen is happening right now so making a 2nd thread here and attaching a video I made about why we all should just stop calling combat PvP, seriously guys

 

SPOILER_bcic.png

 

 

It's a misnomer, it's divisive, it's dumbing down the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you think calling it something different will change anything...people are well aware of who this "combat" is against and slapping a new label on it won't change anything.

 

You may not like the term, but it isn't a misnomer. 

 

The issue isn't that players have opinions about "combat"....it's that NQ doesn't have any sense of design leadership. If NQ was competent enough to actually design their game, people wouldn't be so scared that they are being "forced" to compromise. 

 

The divisions within the player base exist because of how NQ decided to design, market, and present their grossly unfinished game -- many of the arguments about PvP aren't even arguments about the game...but rather its future, which is pure fantasy and speculation at this point. "How will PvP affect my buildings" won't stop being a question just because people call it "combat" lol. 

 

Absent any actual design or structure from NQ, of course people will debate more -- not our fault the game is mostly question marks left open for debate! 

 

...stop quoting JC like the random whims and ideas he spews out on streams mean anything other than the fact that this game has no cohesive design leadership. People love to quote JC as if everything he says is some sacred promise. You can find plenty of things he's "promised" in the last 6 years that didn't work out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a miner, you're a pvper because there might be better miners.

If you're a ship builder, you're a pvper because there might be better ship builders.

If you're a hauler, you're a pvper because there might be better haulers.

 

If you're competing against other players that might be better than you, you are engaging in PVP as far as I'm concerned. PVP isn't just shooting the mark and taking their stuff, it can also be you getting customers business while leaving the competitor high and dry. It's all about where other peoples resources go since PVP is not just what's taken, but what's also freely given.

 

I'm also fine with calling 'combat', 'PVP', because that's what combat is, PVP. I think the main issue the OP brings up is the community using blanket statements. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DarkHorizon said:

If you're a miner, you're a pvper because there might be better miners.

If you're a ship builder, you're a pvper because there might be better ship builders.

If you're a hauler, you're a pvper because there might be better haulers.

 

If you're competing against other players that might be better than you, you are engaging in PVP as far as I'm concerned. PVP isn't just shooting the mark and taking their stuff, it can also be you getting customers business while leaving the competitor high and dry. It's all about where other peoples resources go since PVP is not just what's taken, but what's also freely given.

 

I'm also fine with calling 'combat', 'PVP', because that's what combat its, PVP. I think the main issue the OP brings up is the community using blanket statements. *shrug*

 

1 hour ago, michaelk said:

I don't understand why you think calling it something different will change anything...people are well aware of who this "combat" is against and slapping a new label on it won't change anything.

 

You may not like the term, but it isn't a misnomer. 

 

The issue isn't that players have opinions about "combat"....it's that NQ doesn't have any sense of design leadership. If NQ was competent enough to actually design their game, people wouldn't be so scared that they are being "forced" to compromise. 

 

The divisions within the player base exist because of how NQ decided to design, market, and present their grossly unfinished game -- many of the arguments about PvP aren't even arguments about the game...but rather its future, which is pure fantasy and speculation at this point. "How will PvP affect my buildings" won't stop being a question just because people call it "combat" lol. 

 

Absent any actual design or structure from NQ, of course people will debate more -- not our fault the game is mostly question marks left open for debate! 

 

...stop quoting JC like the random whims and ideas he spews out on streams mean anything other than the fact that this game has no cohesive design leadership. People love to quote JC as if everything he says is some sacred promise. You can find plenty of things he's "promised" in the last 6 years that didn't work out. 

I just think semantics matter, when people say "Do PvP" or "PvP organization" they imply non-aggressive players or non-PvP organizations don't do PvP, which is not the case, but the implications do divide the community or create a perceived division more so than how much there actually is, and NQ do tailor their developments from perceived player sentiment to some degree

 

I just don't want DU to end up like ED where there's a completely separate path of gameplay without any PvP because of some hardcoded distinction or barrier (their solo / private group mode), essentially undermining the whole universe of the game

 

Maybe I'm just paranoid or overly pedantic, at least I hope so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get it, but my perspective is that this ship has sailed a long time ago. 

 

I think the "division" in the community exists because the vision for this game is so ambiguous and poorly articulated and the state of production is so rough.

 

If everyone was having such fun with the game as it exists today, it wouldn't feel like a division...but because the promise and potential of the game are so mismatched with its implementation today, there's a lot of angst and commentary about what needs to be "fixed" to make it complete. 

 

I guess my point is that NQ created this problem by launching such an incomplete project as a "beta" then pitching it as the end-all game for every space nerd's niche whims. 

 

I think a lot of people really, really want to believe in that promise and would rather blame each other than developer NQ...as soon as you recognize that NQ really doesn't have a plan, you're basically giving up that this game will become the promising civilization it was pitched as. 

 

There's still a lot of time for NQ to change directions -- until then, I agree that the player base needs to be patient with each other, but also understand that these discussions are inevitable...not because they are being pointlessly divisive, but because the incomplete and unknown state of the game's design invites speculation, discussion, and strong opinions...especially because many players feel so strongly about DU's potential and vision.  

 

The thing that would fix a lot of these issues is real leadership from the dev responsible for designing the game instead of big fat question marks whenever someone asks about how their game will work...I hope that players can be united enough to push NQ to do its job more professionally.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all this "division talks" are very serious exaggerated. Especialy to blame such irrelevant thing as super-commonly used gamedev term is PvP. 

 

Sure, there is some vocal radical representetives of different... well, not even playstyles (because for most part its quite unclear how they actualy play) but lets say "fantasy concepts". While at same time most people are totaly within reason -- agree on some things, not agree on others, but there is no any drammatic principal divide or clearly defined in stone point of conflict. Pluralism is actualy healthy thing.

 

Personaly I see only one real and dangerous potential for divide -- If NQ allow themeselfs to slip into old good favoritism, when some players seriously not that equal to mass of others (in access to information and ability to have kings ear). I already observe some minor, but worrying signs into this direction. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make a good point, and I even think there's merit in just referring to it as combat, but if you asked me if I thought semantics actually mattered in any kind of substantive way, the answer would be no. I think it's more or less a diversion from the real problem that is divergent player expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was PVP players that made the push for this separation in the first place.  Not in DU but in a hundred other games.

 

PVP combat is different then PVE combat, and it needs to be balanced differently.  So people started thinking of it separately.  Which was a good thing for PVP in most games that i've played.

 

It seems like the division that you're talking about here is between players who are interested in PVP combat, and players who are not.  I don't think calling PVP something else is going to change that.

 

But also, why change it?  People having different interests is what the game is all about.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2020 at 9:02 AM, lucagrabacr said:

 

I just don't want DU to end up like ED where there's a completely separate path of gameplay without any PvP because of some hardcoded distinction or barrier (their solo / private group mode), essentially undermining the whole universe of the game

YES! I was thinking of posting your graphic ('say "combat" not "PvP) over on the ED forums. There the debate has never ceased and is always polarized between the same two toxic extremes. FDev responded and as a result much of the game has been ruined IMO. I really don't want that to happen to DU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Underhook said:

Combat implies your opponent also has a gun.  In many cases the correct term would be slaughter.  That said 'm all for combat but in this game they have PvP instead

No, it does not imply the other guy has a gun. In fact, combat operations are more successful if you can get the drop on your opponent when he is not ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HairballHacker said:

No, it does not imply the other guy has a gun. In fact, combat operations are more successful if you can get the drop on your opponent when he is not ready.

And your goal in catching your enemy by surprise would be to, avoid combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HairballHacker said:

No, it does not imply the other guy has a gun. In fact, combat operations are more successful if you can get the drop on your opponent when he is not ready.

That would be assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HairballHacker said:

No, it would be to win the combat.

 

Ok well then what are we calling the thing that was avoided, in that scenario?  If we're not calling it combat anymore.

 

That needs a name too.  

 

I would like to suggest "Big boy boom boom time"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2020 at 7:28 PM, Atmosph3rik said:

And your goal in catching your enemy by surprise would be to, avoid combat.

Catching your enemy by surprise isn't avoiding combat so much as it is ensuring an optimal outcome for combat on your end. An engagement does not have to be fair or preferable for both parties to be considered combat by definition. One could argue that the people who are "best" at combat are the ones that don't take fights they aren't reasonably sure they will win.

 

Of course, this is all semantics and pedantry at the end of the day. Whether you call it combat, PvP, or some other nonsense, there is still going to be a group of people that create and participate in the meta of it and a group that is unable or unwilling to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the years of arguing on Eve Online that shooting a miner was not classed as "PVP" as the person didn't have the ability to fight back. 

 

If you play an mmorpg you are pvping period, any of these activites you are playing agaisnt another play : Mining, Trading, 'Combat' as you would call it. Regardless, PVP is what it is and has been for a long time.

 

Honestly, I don't know why it even matters that much

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShellCarnage said:

This reminds me of the years of arguing on Eve Online that shooting a miner was not classed as "PVP" as the person didn't have the ability to fight back. 

 

If you play an mmorpg you are pvping period, any of these activites you are playing agaisnt another play : Mining, Trading, 'Combat' as you would call it. Regardless, PVP is what it is and has been for a long time.

 

Honestly, I don't know why it even matters that much

 

 

Literally by not calling it PvP would make the arguments and division of "PvP / not PvP" occur much less often

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you trying to achieve with this topic? Attention? There is PvP and PvE. PvP and PvE are the group of things player do togheter and against each other. Combat in done via AvA, CvC and whatever comes later and goes in PvP folder. #fml #semantics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lucagrabacr said:

Literally by not calling it PvP would make the arguments and division of "PvP / not PvP" occur much less often

But why does that matter?

 

Even if we called it Combat, people would called PVE carebear leaving you with "Combat Orgs/Carebear Orgs". The Divsion will be there no matter what because they are different game styles.

 

It just seems like you've making an issue out of something that isn't even an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...